Johnny Dangerous wrote:Are you actually advocating some kind of violence or forceful use of the state to spread Buddhadharma, or just trying to make some kind of point?

Isn't that what Padmasambhava did?

"Hello, where does your god live?" "In that mountain.""Ok thanks, I'll be back in 30 minutes to teach you the Dharma once I've forced your god to serve me"

I'm not saying that spreading the Dharma by force is good or even acceptable. But shunning such use of force doesn't make sense either.

Speaking of a man named Konchog, there was a man named Konchog Jugney, one of Padmas 25 disciples. He was know as the hero who stabbed a tibetan minister who was anti buddhist ( the story goes that he did this with the approval of the second Buddha Padmasambhava himself). There was also a man named- Palgi Dorje, the killed Langdharma, the king whonwas very antibuddhist in tibet.

Again friends, i am not here to support violence. The main idea of this article was to initiate ideas and opinions, how to find useful ways how to use governments to support buddhism , so buddhist leaders could realize more buddhism and thus people would have more ways to approach dharma. And i suggested that china is the best candidate, but i might always be wrong.

But there are people here who i call "western dharma students". In nature there is no democracy.I have brought those bloody examples not to support violence, but as examples of great buddhists who were beyond the concept of good and bad. They just had goals and missions and saw ways how to reach their goals.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Earth Dragon wrote:But most importantly, it is the government regulatory body who must have the right attitude and approach. Then the rest of the society will follow....

What is needed from a goverment?1) tons of money to do buddhist projects2) government should appoint the right people in charge of this sort of activities, Buddhist who are efficient (Guru Rinpoche for example ) ...

I pray that these ideas of yours never comes true. Government and religion should be separate, even if that religion is Buddhism.

If you want to pray then become a christian.

My apologies. I thought I was in a mahayana forum, specifically in the Tibetan Buddhism section. Oh wait...

So your think and analyse before you start praying...

Oh I have. Generally, religion + politics = path to hell. Spare me your Padmasambhava commments, as you are not him, nor is any of us. And also that was then and this is now.

Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.- Shabkar

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Hi earth-dragon. Wanting to spread the dharma is a very noble ambition but involving government is a recipe for disaster. My country Australia is a very peaceful place & although there are a number of reasons for this the seperation of religion & government is a very important reason for this. The best way to spread the dharma is to start with our own friends & family first. Good-luck & best-wishes.

shaunc wrote:My country Australia is a very peaceful place & although there are a number of reasons for this the seperation of religion & government is a very important reason for this.

Your head of state is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith, maybe that's one reason your country is so peaceful. The US has a separation of church and state written into its constitution. Are they more peaceful or less because of this? Maybe I'll believe their separation of religion and government when they elect an atheist president. I always get surprised when I hear people advocating a separation of religion and state as it seems a lot more pervasive than they seem to admit. It's not just mad ayatollas and blood thirsty popes.

Anyway, I agree with the view that Buddhism has been closely tied to political power from the start. But I think the world has moved on a lot since Ashoka. People are no longer going to believe and follow whatever their head of state says. There is, of course, Bhutan that is a Buddhist Vajrayana monarchy but their influence isn't absolute. American christian missionaries seem to be making in-roads there, with the promise of modern western individualism. Why not get money and patronage from the Chinese government? It's been rebuilding monasteries that were destroyed by the 2010 Yushu earthquake and doing more besides. Maybe it is time to stop fighting China and get whatever helps the Dharma. Guru Rinpoche said Tibet would fall under the Chinese. Pragmatism is a better strategy than burying your head in the sand.

Earth Dragon wrote:And lets face it, it is ridiculous to even think that china is ever going to give tibet back. And they are a leading superpower, so what is the point of protesting and yelling - " free tibet ".

The same point as Chinese protesting and yelling "free china". Chinese people need democaracy as much as Tibetan people do. The truth is that Tibet will never be free if the Chinese people are still enslaved. So it is actually a common cause: democracy for all. When Chinese and Tibetan people (and Uyghur and Miao, and...) realise that, then they will "win".

Does not buddhism teach us not to engage with illusions?

Which illusion? Because there is also the illusion that Tibet "belongs" to China.

Konchog1 wrote:Isn't that what Padmasambhava did? "Hello, where does your god live?" "In that mountain.""Ok thanks, I'll be back in 30 minutes to teach you the Dharma once I've forced your god to serve me"

Chuckle. Speaking of Vatican City, perhaps you are saying that Guru Rinpoche was the first practitioner of Tibetan Jesuitism.

Amusingly the same thing was said by that wretched orientalist Blavatsky about my favorite Catholic writer, Valentin Tomberg, probably with the same motives that earthdragon has.

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days; I fled Him, down the arches of the years; I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways, Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears, I hid from Him, and under running laughter. Up vistaed hopes I sped; And shot, precipitated, Adown Titanic glooms of chasmèd fears, From those strong Feet that followed, followed after. But with unhurrying chase, And unperturbèd pace, Deliberate speed, majestic instancy, They beat - and a Voice beat - More instant than the Feet - ‘All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.’

Also its wrong to think there is no democracy in nature because we are a part of nature. Everything humans build, even if it destroys nature, is a part of nature. To think there is a separation between ourselves and what is natural is the fundamentally wrong view that produces our arrogance that makes us destroy our land, pollute our water, deplete our resources and may well lead to the destruction of all or most of the life on this planet if it doesn't come to an end.

wisdom wrote:Also its wrong to think there is no democracy in nature because we are a part of nature. Everything humans build, even if it destroys nature, is a part of nature. To think there is a separation between ourselves and what is natural is the fundamentally wrong view that produces our arrogance that makes us destroy our land, pollute our water, deplete our resources and may well lead to the destruction of all or most of the life on this planet if it doesn't come to an end.

Hi everyone! In future i will express my ideas more clearly. I m not interested to discuss about good and bad, right snd wrong. The main idea was- rajapadanam sasanam- king/government as a sponsor for buddhist activites.

I have with my own money helped buddhist teachers build temples, organize international conferences on Buddhism, fly and accommodate lots of buddhists at my home. Right now we are engaged in several projects which i am sure most of you will approve, like and use/engage.

So after years of buddhist activities and meeting academics, scholars and monastics, i find ( and so do all serious buddhists who are engaged with worldly buddhist projects and activities ), that state sponsorship and support towards buddhism as a policy would be very useful. It was so for milleniums in Asia. Why do you think it is bad or impossible now? I have not see that modern society provides opportunities to seclude from people and become hermits. It is almost impossible nowasays. So all buddhists , monks and nuns and lay followers, all activities they realize, everything needs money. Money is the tool nowadays, as it has actually always been for the last few thousand of years. And in my opinion it would be great if gove rnemnts would show massive support towards buddhism. Before you comment, i ask you how much have you actually spent to buddhism? If it is more than thousands then i m interested to hear. If you have limited yourself to good wishes and prayers, then i advise you to do a good and useful buddhist practice. Find a most suitable buddhist temple or school or whatever useful project. Give lets say 10% of your wealth. Only 10%. but most of you wont.... So before you do not, i guess you do not understand the idea either because you are not practicing.

But again, i m in no interest to discuss what is good or bad. I m interested to find out how to be useful to buddhism. This was my second ever commenting in a buddhist forum (i did want to see how it works) and i think to continue this topic is a waste of time for all of us.

I will write again after a few weeks and i hope to hear you comments then. It is very nice to see how people react.For the timebeing, i ask everyone- what have you done for buddhism?

I think Earth Dragon's main point is that if the ruling class in China develops more interest in Buddhism, their society at large and Buddhism will benefit as well, not to mention them probably letting up in Tibet.

Honestly I think that's the only way that Tibet will be able to maintain its culture, but I don't see that as very likely in the foreseeable future.

As spiritual practitioners, it is essential for us to realize the importance of human beings. What is most important – religion or beings? In my view, beings are most important. The basis for religion is sentient beings. On the basis of that we have the desire to achieve happiness and abandon suffering. Without this basis, there would be no dharma. All teachings come from that basis of beings – the basis of existence.

These days, there are beings who do not realize this nature – who do not see the connection between the dharma and sentient beings. Consequently, in the name of religious faith, one harms other beings, which comes from not understanding which of the two is most important.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

In Greece, initially, the church was supported by the members of the church: via donations, etc... During this period the church amassed (and still has) huge quantities of wealth. Then, at some point in time, in order to garner favour with the church (a major political force as well since its followers basically voted as they were instructed to by their priest) it was decided that the Greek state would pay salaries to priests, that the church be exempt from paying tax, etc...

I, for example, am not a Christian. Why should I pay taxes to support an organisation that provides nothing of value to me, has huge capital holdings, tax exemption, etc...?

In the meantime, if you go to church on any day, except easter and christmas, you will find only late middle aged to old aged ladies. The only other time you may see young people is at a wedding or a baptism. Peole sem to be losing faith or not being drwan to churches. A major reason for this is that churches are no longer the central to community. Another problem is that with the guaranteed salary there was an influx of people looking for easy money (and it is very easy money) that did not have the moral/ethical behaviour that one would expect of somebody in that position. So there are countless incidents of economic and sexual scandals. Incidents which largely go upunished since the church still sways a large portion of the voting population.

I believe that if the priests had to live off donations then the church would benefit greatly since the only people that would become and remain clergy, would be those who could actually offered something positive to the community. People that would not be the laughing stock of their communties. People that would not just be interested in the money.

The other thing to take into account is that if a religious organisation depends on the government for its funding then it means it is essentially managed and directed by the government. In the case of China, I really don't think that would be such a positive thing.